US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary.
During a combative congressional hearing on Thursday, he refused to answer repeated questions about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly engaged in heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans. Many demanded yes or no answers, but he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.
In one exchange, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. Hegseth said: “Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency.”
While it is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to intervene.
“It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?” said Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio.
As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, “I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.”
“We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,” Hegseth responded.
Time and again, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over.
“You’re an embarrassment to this country. You’re unfit to lead,” Rep. Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat’s voice rising. “You should just get the hell out.”
GOP lawmakers on several occasions apologized to Hegseth for the Democrats’ sharp remarks, saying he should not be subject to such “flagrant disrespect.” Hegseth said he was “happy to take the arrows” to make tough calls and do what’s best.
More questions emerge over Signal chats
Hegseth’s use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers.
He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did.
Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers.
That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity.
“You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,” Moulton said.
“What’s not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,” Hegseth responded.
A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon.
Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app.
Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves “at the pleasure of the president.”
Trump speech raises concerns about politics in the military
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared along Hegseth, was questioned about Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg this week and whether the military was becoming politicized.
The Defense Department has a doctrine that prohibits troops from participating in political activity while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne Division were directed to stand behind Trump at Fort Bragg, and they booed and cheered during his incendiary remarks, including condemnation of his predecessor, Joe Biden.
There also was a pop-up MAGA merchandise stand selling souvenirs to troops in uniform.
Caine repeatedly said US service members must be apolitical but that he was unaware of anything that happened at Fort Bragg.
Hegseth is pressed about policies on female and transgender troops
Hegseth got into a sharp debate about whether women and transgender service members should serve in the military or combat jobs.
He said he has worked to remove diversity programs and political correctness from the military. He said he has not politicized the military but simply wants the most capable troops.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., demanded to know if Hegseth believes that both men and women can pull a trigger, cause death, operate a drone or launch a missile.
“It depends on the context,” Hegseth said, adding that “women carry equipment differently, a 155 round differently, a rucksack differently.”
Hegseth, who has previously said women “straight up” should not serve in combat, asserted that women have joined the military in record numbers under the Trump administration. He said the military “standards should be high and equal.”
He also was asked about three female service members — now being forced out as part of the Pentagon’s move to ban transgender troops.
Hegseth agreed that their accomplishments — which Houlahan read out — were to be celebrated, until he learned they were transgender.
Republican lawmakers jumped to his defense, criticizing any Pentagon spending on gender transition surgery.
Plans for ‘action against Greenland and Panama’
President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland’s leaders.
“Greenland is not for sale,” Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s representative to the U.S, said Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute.
In an effort not to show the Pentagon’s hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Hegseth danced around the direct question from Smith, leading to the confusion.
“Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don’t think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,” Smith said.
